House Bill 1561, micro-stamping legislation, is pending in the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.

Introduced by F-rated state Representative David Paul Linsky (D-5th Middlesex), H01561 would require that semi-automatic firearms manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in the state of Massachusetts be capable of micro-stamping ammunition and establish fines for violations of this requirement.

Micro-stamping is an unproven technology that would require unique identifying information from the firearm, including the make, model, and serial number to be etched into the firing pin and breech face in such a manner that those identifiers are imprinted on the cartridge case upon firing. The technology can easily be defeated with common household tools, has no public safety value, and adds substantially to the cost of the firearm.

If passed, the availability of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns in Massachusetts could be in jeopardy, as manufacturers simply may choose not to build or sell firearms for purchase in the state. In fact, this bill would likely create a de facto ban on new semi-automatic firearms.

A hearing date has not been set for H01561 and the NRA will keep you posted on the status of this anti-gun legislation. In the meantime, please contact your state Representative urge him or her to oppose H01561. For contact information or help identifying your state Representative click here.

The town of Marion has for some time provided free training for anyone wishing to get a firearms license in MA. Certificates are issued the same day as the class. Take it to your own town PD and pay the $100 and you're all set if you live in a town where the chief is not an idiot.

Van Canna wrote:Can't understand why the local chief should have the sole power of decision....what can the voters do to change this idiocy?

Have the laws changed throughout the state. I believe that the best way to weed out people who shouldn't possess guns is at the local level where the chief should know if you have had runs out to your house or are known to them for other reasons, but the check should simply be, no felony, no indication of mental instability, etc. Then simply issue it.

I'd even propose going as far as VT of NH and others. No felonies, no problem.

No other reasons for denial and equal treatment in every town. Then we wouldn't have towns like Avon right next to that wonderful melting pot called Brockton, sitting there waiting for the spill over into their living rooms because the chief (according to the list) is a gun control freak.

The problem is that chiefs are individually applying their own bias to applicants...human nature is always the same...

The Sharon chief is like that...but a good friend took him to court and won...I was present at the hearing...where the town's hired attorney...tried to vilify my friend on the stand...for no reason...he is a Gillette executive.

It cost the town a pretty penny to pay their lawyer only to lose the case and establish a legal precedent...still the chief routinely denies permits...possibly thinking not many will go through the expense of taking him to court...

There is a lot more green on the first list than there used to be. A lot of good work by a lot of people over at NEShooters has been instrumental as well. As in everything that happens in the PRoMA, it is all political. Police Chiefs are hired by the city/town and reflect the leanings of the board, selectmen, counsel, whatever, of that city/town. Not too many years ago I was able to get Class A ALP with a number of people in Worcester. Now... different city counsel, different chief, different attitude and it shows as red on the list. On the other hand, there are towns that I know have a fairly pro-gun board of selectmen, but have been saddled with an anti-gun chief who has a long-term contract that they can't get rid of unless some egregious violation occurs. But even in the particular town I'm thinking of, it isn't really a problem... for those who are connected. They get their permits, while the average person is denied out of hand. Like I said... all politics.

Van Canna wrote:Well, one way to handle those red towns might be to bring suit against the chief and the town as it was done by a friend of mine in Sharon.

Expensive but worth it for him out of principle. Also it cost the town big $ to hire a defense counsel for the town/chief.

I attended the hearing before the judge.

Judge ruled in favor of my friend citing the constitution...thus creating a precedence...Goal was very happy.

How do you see this victory impacting on future applicants?

Will licenses still be denied by the chief?

The feedback that I've heard is that many Chiefs who are being challenged on such denials are changing their tactics. What I've heard is that they're starting to issue LTCs, but are trying to issue Class "B" and/or are severely limiting/restricting them... such as "for sport and target use only". I was told also that the current LTCs don't have the place for restrictions as the old ones did. I just went through a renewal, but haven't gotten the new license yet, so I don't know what the differences are... yet. To be honest, I haven't kept up on those recent changes as completely as I probably should be. (I have my reasons...) Supposedly GOAL was instrumental in getting those changes through. Regardless, many of the anti-gun Chiefs have stopped denying outright, but are using restrictions or other tactics to get their way. The courts have thrown out cases saying that having a restriction is not a denial of 2nd A rights, so too bad.

On a related note, I have a friend who lives in the Southwest. He's part of a pro-gun group there and they have a monthly meeting. They meet in a large secondary room of a place that is posted "No Guns Allowed" as that State allows private establishments to do. So... my friend, who always carries, says to some of the folks that he's kind of shocked at having to disarm to come to a pro-gun meeting and why don't they have the meeting somewhere else? After plenty of chuckles, he's told, "Free people don't ask permission to exercise an inalienable right." He's also told that place has good food and the best meeting space to fit their large group. Finally, someone says to him, "You know it's called 'Concealed Carry' for a reason... right?"

The feedback that I've heard is that many Chiefs who are being challenged on such denials are changing their tactics. What I've heard is that they're starting to issue LTCs, but are trying to issue Class "B" and/or are severely limiting/restricting them... such as "for sport and target use only".

So you still have to argue a 'reason' for unrestricted carry?

And would the reason be entertained?

A friend applying to Bra police says there is no place on the app. that requires a reason to be stated.

Chiefs have stopped denying outright, but are using restrictions or other tactics to get their way. The courts have thrown out cases saying that having a restriction is not a denial of 2nd A rights, so too bad.